Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation # 27: T.B. Baines

Contrasting Baines with Waldron on Gal. 6

Galatians 6:11 See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand. 12 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, [remember Romans 2 here] but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. 14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. 17 From now on let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus. 18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.

After a brief aside, Paul resumes his counter attack on the Judaizers in verse 11 and closes out his letter with a reaffirmation that physical circumcision or physical non-circumcision are to no avail spiritually. The Judaizers were the ones in Paul’s day who were attacking the Church and those who were added to it by suggesting that grace was not by faith alone, but by faith and by keeping the Old Covenant stipulations (in the Galatian case Paul uses the example of circumcision—whether or not that was the only stipulation the Judaizers would like to have enforced is un clear, but we can guess that it was all of them). Paul actually comments on their motives by suggesting that, while maybe they had an idea that what Paul was saying about Jesus as the suffering servant was right, they were not willing to suffer for Christ on account of the cross, which leads us to think that they had not believed and repented, but still clung to the Old Covenant cultic practices that were but shadows of the substance of Christ.

If Paul had in mind (as Baines did) that, “the expression, "Israel of God," is figuratively applied to those who for the time had taken Israel's place as the special object of God's favour”, then I reiterate what I said earlier, the Judaizers would never had objected to Paul’s teaching. The only reason they did object was due to the fact that they knew Paul was teaching that even the uncircumcised gentile could be brought near to the promises of God, the commonwealth of Israel (the true spiritual Israel to whom the Abrahamic promises were made in the first place), being made children of Abraham through Christ (as all who are made Abraham’s children) and thus becoming spiritual Jews, or “Jews inwardly” as the Apostle puts it. If Paul had been preaching the gospel for another people of God who were just a parenthesis in His plan until He resumed His Abrahamic plan with the ethnic Jews, then the Judaizers never would have considered Paul’s teachings as scandalous.

Considering again, the Galatians passage, Paul concludes with a benediction to all those who uphold the Christian and godly teaching of liberty he has there proclaimed. At first glance it looks as though he is addressing two different groups in it: “all who walk by this rule”, and “the Israel of God”. If it were in fact the case that these two designations signified two different groups, then it could also be argued from the text that perhaps the later group does not walk by that rule since they were not counted among the same. I submit that Paul is referring here to the same group of persons with two distinct aliases. I have included below, a quote from Dr. Sam Waldron out of his book, “Macarthur’s Millennial Manifesto” to help illuminate the verse.

“Several comments may help to see the relevance of all this to Galatians 6:16. First, we note the parallel verse to 6:15 in 5:6. It states again the complete meaninglessness of physical circumcision with regard to Christ Jesus. It is faith working through love that marks the ones upon whom God’s covenant blessings in Christ come. Second, and also noteworthy, is Paul’s positive rejection in this Galatian context of receiving circumcision. The reception of circumcision is said to mean that Christ will be of no benefit to you. Of course, in other contexts Paul could take a Timothy and circumcise him, but in the Galatian context it was an entirely different matter. The point is that in Galatians 6:16 is not another context. To attribute the phrase, the Israel of God, in this context exclusively to Jewish Christians is to imply that only the reception of circumcision could make a Christian a member of the Israel of God. There are only two possibilities on the Dispensationalist understanding. Either it is significant to be a member of the Israel of God. Or it is insignificant. If it is insignificant, why does Paul bother to mention it and ascribe such an honorable title to Jewish Christians in contrast to Gentile Christians? If it is significant to be a part of the Israel of God, then by mentioning this at the end of his letter, he implicitly encourages the physical circumcision without which one cannot on the Dispensationalist interpretation be a member of the Israel of God. It is impossible to think that Paul would do this in of all places Galatians.”

With these statements quoted above, it is evident that Baines has wholly forgotten the following text in Ephesians 2:

11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,

There is clearly no division of the promises made to Abraham; the physical, national Jew nor the gentile made near has any priority in distribution of these promises according to Ephesians 2:14-18. Likewise, as Paul illustrates in Romans 11,

“17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.”

You see, the illustration is not reasonable in the dispensational system. If the Church was a separate body of believer, parenthetical to the “Israel of God” then the illustration Paul should have used would have gone something like this, but you gentiles were planted in the same garden as the cultivated olive tree, and because of their unbelief the Gardener pulled up the old tree by its roots and burned it, but do not boast because it is the Fertile Soil (Christ picture) which supports you and, though it is true, God did remove the old tree and plant you in the same garden, just like they were cut down for their unbelief, so you too can be cut down if you do not persevere. And also, does the Gardener not have the power to replant the old true back in the garden? For if you were cut down from outside the garden and placed, contrary to nature, in the garden walls, how much more will that natural tree be replanted in the garden?

Furthermore, the physical land to which the Jews in dispensationalism so desperately cling was imparted to them in measure in the Old Testament. Why does this fact go largely unmentioned in the positive assertions of dispensational thought? I have a feeling that it is difficult to maintain so great an emphasis on the supposed, temporal, eschatological aspect of the fulfillment of the “land” promises made to Abraham when those promises have been fulfilled in some (and no so small) way.

Joshua 1:2 “Moses My servant is dead; now therefore arise, cross this Jordan, you and all this people, to the land which I am giving to them, to the sons of Israel.

Joshua 1:6 “Be strong and courageous, for you shall give this people possession of the land which I swore to their fathers to give them.

Joshua 1:14 “Your wives, your little ones, and your cattle shall remain in the land which Moses gave you beyond the Jordan, but you shall cross before your brothers in battle array, all your valiant warriors, and shall help them, 15 until the LORD gives your brothers rest, as He gives you, and they also possess the land which the LORD your God is giving them. Then you shall return to your own land, and possess that which Moses the servant of the LORD gave you beyond the Jordan toward the sunrise.”

Joshua 22:4 “And now the LORD your God has given rest to your brothers, as He spoke to them; therefore turn now and go to your tents, to the land of your possession, which Moses the servant of the LORD gave you beyond the Jordan.

Joshua 23:13 know with certainty that the LORD your God will not continue to drive these nations out from before you; but they will be a snare and a trap to you, and a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you. 14 “Now behold, today I am going the way of all the earth, and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the LORD your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed. 15 “It shall come about that just as all the good words which the LORD your God spoke to you have come upon you, so the LORD will bring upon you all the threats, until He has destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you.

Commenting on the passages above, again I cite Dr. Waldron,

“I have labored this point because it is crucial. We must be clear that God’s promises were not fulfilled to the generation that originally left Egypt. Only two of those above the age of 20 survived to see the fulfillment of the promise of the land. Yet this is viewed as God keeping His promises to Israel. What is true here in Joshua and of the original generation of the covenant nation is true throughout its history. The promises are fulfilled to the elect remnant. And this counts as fulfilling the promises to the nation. Thus, Judah’s dwelling in the land counts as fulfilling the promises of God even when the northern tribes are exiled and lost forever. Thus, the return from exile of the remnant counts as the return of Israel to the land. Even so Paul’s apology in Romans 9-11 is built on this principle of the remnant. The word of God to Israel has not failed (Rom. 9:6) because the promises are fulfilled to the elect remnant (Rom. 9:7-13). Romans 9:27 emphasizes the point:”

Because the literal (consistent or not), exclusively grammatical/historical interpretation of Ezekiel’s temple and all its trappings is the biggest difference I have with dispensationalists, and because I view such an interpretation (to whatever degree it is held as literal) as the least “Christian” in its orthodoxy as far as dispensational doctrines spun off from the Church/Israel distinction go, I decided to deal with it again below as I continue to respond to Baines’ premillennial assertions. In the material covered by Baines in three of his works regarding dispensational premillennialism, his treatment of the sizable objection to his position from the book of Hebrews remains largely unanswered.